By Dr. Madelyn Fernstrom
Across the nation nearly everyone I speak with has a strong reaction to last week’s plan led by New York City’s mayor to ban sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces (a typical “medium”). This includes both bottled and fountain drinks containing more than 25 calories in an eight-ounce serving. The ban would not affect 100% juices or drinks containing 50% or more of milk or a milk substitute (like milkshakes).
Anyone wanting to purchase a 32-ounce drink can purchase two 16-ounce drinks. And that’s the source of the problem. Should the government intervene in a private area like food choice? Freedom of choice, with value is the question here. People have joked about what’s next: smaller slices of pizza, a thinner burger, smaller cookies?
While it seems unlikely that this policy will become a law, from both the regulatory and legal points of view, this attention-grabbing concept is causing a lot of controversy.
Going “retro” on drink sizes makes a lot of sense, and it’s not a new concept. Twenty years ago, 16 ounces seemed like a big size, considering that seven- to eight-ounce servings were very common. And, in Europe, these mega-size cups are not even available. In my mind, size is all relative to what you’re accustomed to!
Is it unfair for people to pay more for a larger size drink? Do these supersized drinks contribute to obesity? Depending on the circumstances, the answer can be “yes” or “no.”
What do you think of this policy? And how do you think this policy would be received in the greater Pittsburgh region? I’d really love to hear your thoughts in this controversial area!
Here's an infographic from the CDC for some perspective on the change in portions over the years:
Is taking away rights ever the answer? I don't think that this will provide a solution to the issue. Why only drinks? What about taxing junk food like they did with cigarettes? They can spend the revenue educating the public about nutrition. I also read that there is a strong correlation between the poverty level and obesity. Would it make more sense to concentrate on decreasing the cost of healthy food and increasing processed foods prices? Unfortunately, I don't think there is an easy remedy.
ReplyDeleteYes, reducing the cost of healthy foods is the big elephant in the room. THAT is a tough one. Great points.
DeleteI think that one issue here is even the nomenclature of the sizes. Some fast food restaurants don't even offer a "small" size anymore. Or worse, it is on the children's menu. Yes we have to think for ourselves, but when the standard becomes HUGE, we tend to gravitate towards it. I personally hate censorship and laws for these sort of things, but it's starting to get ridiculous that we need enlarged seats in airplanes, bigger aisles, and so on for our nation.
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point. Renaming the smaller sizes as "child" size is a problem. When the choice of the downsized version is still way to big, it's a cause for consumer confusion.
Delete